You know a long time ago, say the 50 every one had to interview and assess each applicant on these interviews which included the high school diploma. College at that time was mainly for professionals doctors, lawyers ect. As time passed the high school diploma with the social promotion came to mean less and less. Then came the Jr College and it was embraced by the business world as the best tool to qualify a applicant. Back then the position of teacher was tantamount to a volunteer position, with women filling most of the jobs, the primary remuneration was the respect a teacher got (you can't buy that). As it became necessary for both members of a family to work to support the family the need to increase the pay of teachers became apparent, then men moved into the field and the need increased. The attitude of the students in the class room deteriorated and the respect for the teacher disappeared. The appeasement of the students destroyed the structure of the school and brought the level of achievement down. When you look at the cost of education and what we get for it you start to wonder what its for. Teachers seem to be another animal at the trough, with questionable outcome. The HR people are the results of this system and just follow the regiment they have been taught. There are tons of people with no college (jr or otherwise) who have common sense and a work ethic that make for a excellent employee who never get pass HR.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Fred Taylor Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 11:38 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] Bosses look for poached talent Too many HR people doing the screening that only know the "buzzwords". They have no idea of what a qualified candidate would be. Fred On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Pete Theisen <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Everybody, > > > http://madamenoire.com/64676/why-are-the-unemployed-being-asked-not-to-apply -for-jobs/ > > According to our friends over at theGrio, more and more employers are > becoming hesitant to offer jobs to the unemployed. Why? According to > writer David A. Love, because they're assuming the worst of those > candidates. There's a perception floating around that if you were laid > off, chances are you were given the boot because of your inadequacies > and laziness, since of course, employers always keep their "top tier" > workers. On top of that, others making the hiring decisions don't want > to pay for extra training for those who have been out work for an > extended period of time. But most of all, cutting out unemployed > individuals who haven't gained experience for a while helps make the > hiring process go a faster. Less candidates, less time spent reading > over resumes. Crazy, right? > > Can't tell you how jacked up this is on so many levels. You're either > too qualified for some jobs on one end, or you've been unemployed so > long you're all of a sudden not fit to work on the other. You can't win > for trying these days! But what are your thoughts? > -- > Regards, > > Pete > http://pete-theisen.com/ > http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/27E04D7A2579490BA19468EAA2EEA414@jerryfootePC ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
